A third party ?

A third party ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Termyn8or -> A third party ? (11/8/2009 11:28:31 PM)
Think up the platform. What would a viable third party be for and against. Remember that you are not the dictator, this must agree with the most people possible. What would be different about this third party that would draw just about everyone in ? They say you can't please everyone, but what I mean is to give it a try. Almost everyone can agree that the scope of government authority must be limited. Almost everyone agrees that rights should be respected, even as they step on each others' rights from time to time. But the thing is, we really don't even have an idea of the ideal here. Isn't that where it starts ? So what would you do ? You can't really think selfishly here, you want people to come. You want them to join the cause. You want true loyalists. At this point in time I am not so sure it is even possible to win at the ballot box for anyone but the current PTB. Of course they like it that way. But we still have the power of the vote. We got three years folks, now is the time. Now I don't want to hear about what the repubicrats or the dummycans did. Fuck all that. I don't care. You can hijack the thread, but if you take it there you will make my shit list. I don't give a fuck what they do. I want to hear what WE ashould do, what this new party should do, stand for. All that. Fuck what they do, we already know, the odds are not in our favor. And fuck Iraq and Afghanistan, just consider it a foregone conclusion that we need to just get the fuck out of there. What they have been doing does not work, not in the long run. I am more interested in domestic problems here. While I realize that foreign event do have an effect on what happens here, and it will be inevitable to address those issues, what about here at home. On Star Trek somebody said "Only a fool fights in a burning house". I think I also heard a long time ago "Only a fool fights on a burning ship". They mean the same thing. We have too many problems right here to fuck around with all this other bullshit. I am talking about a revamp of the justice system, all federal agencies and all of that and how it affects the lives of US Citizens. I care not for Afghanistan, Israel, Russia, China Zimbabwe or any other hole in the fucking wall. What is going to make us strong, healthy, and secure ? Think about that. Can you ? I will make my visions known in due time. That will be after I see if I am talking to the wall or not. Therefore I will let this go and await the opinions of others. Just what would a really viable third party stand for ? Vanillas can call us a bunch of fags, dykes, wierdos and maniacs, but what if we actually spawned a third party ? Our values, our beliefs, imposed upon others. I think it would be better. For example you could be poly, bi and kinky as a hose wrapped up on a truck axle after a thousand mile trip, and maybe I am as well, but if my neighbor wants to have it the old way, Mom and Pop, white picket fence, a dog named Spot, the works, I respect that right and would try to accomodate within reason, and at the very least to not violate his right to live in that way. My freaky friends would not even be seen by his kids, except maybe on Halloween. That is within his rights. And it is my right to live how I live. So I am pretty sure we all can agree on that, but if successful it will be our job to guarantee that. As long as his exercising his right does not interfere with those of another, we, the big bad wolf, do not care. When it bothers someone else then it is our job to moderate the argument. That's called going to court. How do we handle that ? And to be honest, since I believe radical change is needed, we would have to tell the People who elect us or our's that this will not happen overnight. They are not electing a dictator here. There is still some division of power, and if a third party got elected it would definitely show. To say the least. But what do we want ? Can we even define that ? That is the question. T

Louve00 -> RE: A third party ? (11/9/2009 5:56:01 AM)
We already have more than one party to the US system. However, those parties are not heavily endorsed. While repubs and dems get millions and millions for support, another party usually funds his own campaign. To get noticed and to get your causes out there and what you stand for, you need the money to get it out there. Ross Perot came closest (I believe) to getting the most votes from a third party camp. But Perot had millions of his own to spend. And also spent some of his money on TV prime time. I'm not sure if they gave him a spot in the public debating area. But that is another place that other parties aren't recognized in. While president and vice-president elects from repubs and dems can debate their causes publicly, the other parties aren't even introduced to that arena. They're voices that are never heard, with no power to stand behind them.

Musicmystery -> RE: A third party ? (11/9/2009 6:18:56 AM)
Third parties tend to be motivated around single issues (or few issues), as this is the impetus for creating and promoting the party. Alas, they'd be better served by PACs, perhaps, because they generally don't present candidates and platforms that address the wide range of issues facing government and voters. The broader range, though, presents a problem for firing up all those diverse people to create and promote the new party. Add this to the difficulties in creating this in a largely two-party system. But it's happened before; perhaps it will happen again.

Moonhead -> RE: A third party ? (11/9/2009 6:24:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Third parties tend to be motivated around single issues (or few issues), as this is the impetus for creating and promoting the party. Very true. Perhaps a party campaigning on a ticket to send all of the Wall Street financiers to Guatanamo bay would do well at the moment? I'd imagine that's a single issue most of the country could get behind, and seizing their assets would probably do the economy a few favours.

Musicmystery -> RE: A third party ? (11/9/2009 6:32:31 AM)
You just need to corral all those flaming moderates... [:D] Seriously, though, a party with true fiscal discipline is needed. Cutting taxes to spur growth, and then cutting taxes to give back during growth, are both expansionary policies. Spending when we must to spur growth, and then spending when we have the cash to spend, are also both expansionary policies. Right and left, we never impose the discipline needed to contract and prepare for down times. A party that took this seriously and--here's the hard part--could convince a majority of voters of its pragmatic wisdom--would absolutely set this country on a more secure path. Along the way, though, lots and lots and lots of other issues need attention as well, making the process long and slow.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: A third party ? (11/9/2009 9:17:20 AM)
I still cant put my hands on it but there is a PhD thesis that proves that "winner take all" democracies always must evolve into a two party system, and once there cannot devolve into a multiparty system. Proportional representation is the only way to sustain a multiparty system.

pahunkboy -> RE: A third party ? (11/9/2009 11:33:52 AM)
Money is the only thing that is understood. Take your money out of the bank. Problem solved.

kdsub -> RE: A third party ? (11/9/2009 12:18:22 PM)
True income tax reform Healthcare plan that regulates insurance companies and removes their monopoly powers. Prohibit all lobbying of congress Prohibit political donations from industry and only allow $1000 individual max donations. Mandatory reduction of national debt Mandatory regulations and timetable for energy independence Tax deductions for industry residing in the United States Mandatory government purchasing of American made products if available. Line item veto Just a few

pahunkboy -> RE: A third party ? (11/9/2009 2:33:43 PM)
Did someone say "party"? Oh man! Yes- lets PARTY!!! yeSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!~

DomKen -> RE: A third party ? (11/9/2009 2:43:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Prohibit all lobbying of congress This one is unconstitutional.

slvemike4u -> RE: A third party ? (11/9/2009 2:50:43 PM)
And rightfully so....now if you would like to amend that to limiting the size and scope of lobbying firms go right ahead....its unworkable...but give it a shot.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: A third party ? (11/9/2009 3:48:29 PM)
FR There are too many parties as there is. When democracy was created it didn't used to be dominated by parties but instead by individuals representing their local area. Now for example I look at PMQs and I often find one government MP asking the PM a well rehearsed question that has nothing to do with what his constituents want but is instead a rhetorical question usually in the form of a self congratulating statement. Then you have the opposition asking questions not based on what their constituents need either but instead delving into highlighting the latest embarrassing headline for the government in the tabloid press. Add to this all the single issue parties with their questions not relating to what their constituents want but instead championing their single position. Makes the whole thing pointless where nothing of noteworthiness is achieved.

Musicmystery -> RE: A third party ? (11/9/2009 6:02:13 PM)
Just to clarify.. This works very different in the U.S. than it does in a Parliamentary system.

kdsub -> RE: A third party ? (11/9/2009 6:34:44 PM)
OK...I'll bite...where does it say that you cannot prohibit lobbying in the constitution.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: A third party ? (11/9/2009 6:37:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub OK...I'll bite...where does it say that you cannot prohibit lobbying in the constitution. mmmm, freedom of speech?

Musicmystery -> RE: A third party ? (11/9/2009 6:38:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub OK...I'll bite...where does it say that you cannot prohibit lobbying in the constitution. Check item 1

kdsub -> RE: A third party ? (11/9/2009 6:49:31 PM)
Freedom of speech does not need to be infringed to prohibit direct lobbying of congress. Lobbyist can buy time on private and public television or internet and talk till they are blue in the face. On a personal level they could contact their representative and express their views. There is no infringement of speech to prohibit organized lobbying by paid representatives trying to influence legislation. Butch

Musicmystery -> RE: A third party ? (11/9/2009 6:54:49 PM)
Tell it to the courts, Butch.

kdsub -> RE: A third party ? (11/9/2009 7:02:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Tell it to the courts, Butch. When has it been before a court specifically concerning lobbying? There are already laws against bribery...I think lobbying could be considered just that if any kind of benefit is obtained as a result of lobbying...Anyway I think it would be a good addition to a third party platform...If nothing else to gain support. Get a large enough political following and watch how fast Democrats and Republicans jump on the anti-lobbying wagon. Butch

Brain -> RE: A third party ? (11/9/2009 7:06:00 PM)
We already have a third party and it's called the Green party and the leader is Ralph Nader and I strongly suggest if the Democrats do not keep their promises, people in the next election should vote for the Green party. I would start with Senators, especially Democratic senators, who will vote against health care reform. People like Joe Lieberman, Mary Landrieu, and Ben Nelson. I can't believe what a sell out Joe Lieberman has become, his behavior is totally outrageous. He needs to be completely purged from any involvement with the Democratic Party. He needs to be treated like a leper. And it will take leadership from Obama and Harry Reid.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875